If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Even more shocking than the barbarity of the terrorist attacks in London and Boston is the denial by authorities on both sides of the Atlantic about their common religious motive.

British Muslims offered the same explanation as American Muslims for slaughtering their fellow citizens — Islamic holy war — yet the political classes on both sides of the pond rejected it out of hand.

Just minutes after British-born Michael Adebolajo and another Brit ambushed and decapitated soldier Lee Rigby, 25, in the middle of a London street, he spoke calmly into a camera, his blood-stained hands still holding the meat cleaver: “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers, and this British soldier is eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth.”

Adebolajo, 28, added that their holy book commands them to seek such revenge.

London’s mayor dismissed his theological rationale as “deluded” and “deranged.” Prime Minister David Cameron said the sickening attack was “a betrayal of Islam.”

Added the British leader: “There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”

A month earlier and more than 3,000 miles away, however, naturalized US citizen Dzhokhar Tsarnaev offered the same justification for massacreing fellow Americans at the Boston marathon with his older brother.

In a note on the boat he was hiding in as police closed in, he called the Boston victims “collateral damage” in a holy war against the West. He also scrawled: “When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims.”

Like his British counterparts, President Obama refuses to see the religious connection. He called the War on Terror over, simply because we say so — without acknowledging that Muslim terrorists certainly don’t think so.

“This ideology is based on a lie,” he insisted Thursday in a national security speech. “This ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims.”

Is it though?

While such violence is written off in official circles as a distortion of the tenets of Islam, it is in fact scripturally supported. And jihad in defense of Muslims and Islam is actually mainstream thinking inside the Muslim community, widely preached in mosques and Islamic literature across Britain and America. According to recent surveys, moreover, the vast majority of Muslim-Americans harbor a similarly deep resentment against the US-led war on terror and the military waging it.

“Those threads are not fully, or widely, understood or accepted from a law enforcement, intelligence or political perspective,” he added.

Why? Western leaders have not read Islamic texts for themselves, relying instead on Islamic clerics and apologists to tell them what they say about jihad and other sanctioned violence.

That’s a problem. After the London beheading, for instance, Muslim leaders insisted the Koran forbids killing. With typical duplicity, they cited a portion of a verse — “Whoever killed a human being . . . it shall be regarded as having killed all mankind” — while leaving out the critical part: “ . . . except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land.”

Villainy is defined in the next verse as “those who wage war against Allah,” a crime punishable by — you guessed it — beheading.

An almost willful blindness to what motivates the enemy is preventing the West from effectively defeating it, says retired Army Maj. Stephen Coughlin, who has advised the Pentagon on Islamic military doctrine.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, as long as the enemy thinks it’s right,” he said. “If the enemy says he’s fighting in the name of green cheese, then we’ve got to know green cheese!”

According to the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts, physical fighting is obligatory on every able-bodied male when Muslim lands are invaded by kaffirs, or non-Muslims. This meaning is undisputed by the four major schools of Sunni jurisprudence.

Jihad is also a communal obligation that can be waged by all other Muslims through the pen, tongue or purse. A share of all Muslim tithing, in fact, is set aside for jihad, Gawthrop points out.

The word “jihad” is derived from the Arabic term for warriors — “mujahideen” — who in the Koran are promised a higher reward in the “gardens of Paradise” than “those who sit at home.” (The London beheader’s nickname was “Mujahid.”)

Obama asserted that “Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family.”

But polls show their loyalties are divided between this nation and the greater Muslim world or brotherhood, known as “the Ummah.” A 2011 Gallup poll said Muslims here “strongly identify” with the global Ummah, which includes Afghanistan and Iraq and all other Muslim lands and therefore transcends nationalism, patriotism and even secular friendships in importance.

The same poll found that 83% of Muslim-Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq and almost half say the US never should have sent troops into Afghanistan — even after 9/11.

An earlier survey by Pew, moreover, found that 1 in 4 young US Muslims think suicide bombings to defend Islam are justified.

More and more Muslims living among us are taking violent jihad seriously. To them, the war isn’t just in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s right here, and the war zones include not just sporting events and city streets but shopping malls, amusement parks, even schools — all fair targets in their holy war.

“You people will never be safe,” Adebolajo warned. “It will be the average guy like you and your children” — who are attacked.

Politically taboo or not, it’s time America had a frank national discussion about the “holy” words that motivate such bloodlust, and what they actually mean to the Muslim community, because it’s clear these words can kill.

Paul Sperry is a Hoover media fellow and author of “Infiltration” (Thomas Nelson).

It should be noted that even the New York Post, one of the few non-PC news sources left in the world, saw fit to not allow comments related to this article to be posted on their website. I'm pretty sure they know what the almost universal view of the "world's most peaceful religion" those comments would most likely have expressed. After all, I suspect the author of the piece probably is worried enough about whether his head will remain attached to his body as it is; after revealing the truth about the majority of Muslim attitudes toward us infidels and what their cultish religion teaches on the subject.

Last edited by Articulate_Ape; 05-27-2013 at 01:40 PM.

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)

Can a President Who Has Promised to 'Stand with the Muslims' Protect Americans?

In Obama's Audacity of Hope, he insinuated that he would stand with Muslim Americans should the political winds shift in any ugly direction." He also asserted in Bob Woodward's Obama's Wars, "We can absorb [another] terrorist attack." These are two straightforward statements that raise the question of whether a man who has been seemingly obsessed with reaching out to "the Muslim world" since taking office is capable of fulfilling his duty as commander-in-chief to keep America safe and secure.

The negative implications of Obama's time in office will be felt for decades, but one thing is clear. The U.S. President who does not recognize America's exceptionalism and who has promised to stand with Muslims has been unable to keep Americans safe from Islamic terror -- both at home and abroad. >>> And unless Obama's policies of appeasement, political correctness, government dependency, leading from behind, and willful ignorance regarding the Islamic threat to the West will lead to further terrorism.

>>> His refusal to use the terms "War on Terror" and "Islamic fundamentalism" are just examples of a belief either that he can wish away evil or that evil simply does not exist. But what the country needs is a president who understands Islamic jihad for what it is -- the totalitarian, fundamentalist dogma that drives the violence perpetrated by those who have waged holy war on the West. And Obama has yet to give us any indication that he understands these very real threats, or that he is interested in, and capable of, protecting us from them. >>>

>>> Unfortunately, Obama seems driven by a desire to befriend Muslims and demonize those who recognize that, while not all Muslims are terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims and that radical Islam is a clear, present, and dangerous threat. Martha Raddatz observed, "The president has been so worried about offending non-jihadist Muslims that he's tried to take the ideology out of our enemy, which is nuts considering our enemy is the violent ideology."

The administration's assertions that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate epitomize the administration's cluelessness. >>>

It should be noted that even the New York Post, one of the few non-PC news sources left in the world, saw fit to not allow comments related to this article to be posted on their website. I'm pretty sure they know what the almost universal view of the "world's most peaceful religion" those comments would most likely have expressed. After all, I suspect the author of the piece probably is worried enough about whether his head will remain attached to his body as it is; after revealing the truth about the majority of Muslim attitudes toward us infidels and what their cultish religion teaches on the subject.

The Post generally doesn't do comments for opinion pieces (none of their current columns have opinion threads). They do prominently display their e-mail link for letters to the editor.

The Post generally doesn't do comments for opinion pieces (none of their current columns have opinion threads). They do prominently display their e-mail link for letters to the editor.

I stand corrected.

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)